Following a mistrial declared in September in the trial of Lindsay Clancy, who faced charges in the 2023 deaths of her three children, attorneys for both the defense and prosecution have filed competing motions in Plymouth Superior Court, awaiting rulings from Judge William F. Sullivan.
Clancy, 36, a mother from Duxbury, Massachusetts, was charged with the strangulation deaths of her children: Cora, 5; Dawson, 3; and Callan, 8 months. The jury failed to reach a unanimous verdict after indicating deadlock twice, leading Sullivan on September 4 to declare a mistrial. At that time, the jury was reportedly split 11-1 in favor of acquitting Clancy, with a single juror dissenting. The jury foreperson noted concerns that this lone juror may have disregarded judicial instructions about reasonable doubt.
The defense, led by attorney Kevin Reddington, asserts that Clancy was not criminally responsible due to severe postpartum depression that caused psychosis, a rare but serious condition. Reddington has filed a motion seeking dismissal of the three murder indictments on double jeopardy grounds, arguing that the mistrial could have been avoided through alternative measures, such as questioning the holdout juror or replacing them with an alternate. Double jeopardy protections generally prevent a defendant from being tried twice for the same offense.
In response, the Plymouth District Attorney’s Office, represented by Assistant District Attorney Jennifer Sprague, filed an opposition to the motion last week. The prosecutors argued that questioning individual jurors would amount to improper judicial coercion and intrude on the jury’s deliberations. They emphasized that Judge Sullivan had conducted a limited inquiry with each juror and provided collective instructions on reasonable doubt before declaring the mistrial. The prosecution maintains that the court thoroughly explored options to avoid the mistrial.
Separately, the district attorney’s office has requested a gag order restricting public statements concerning the case, including by prosecutors, defense attorneys, and law enforcement, until all post-trial proceedings, including appeals, conclude. Filed on September 28, the motion seeks to prevent prejudicial extrajudicial comments that might influence future proceedings. Violations of the proposed order could result in contempt charges, fines, or disciplinary action.
The defense opposed this request, with attorney Laura B. McConnell arguing that a gag order would violate First Amendment rights and constitutes prior restraint. McConnell contended that the prosecution provided no concrete evidence to justify the restriction and that the motion attempts to preemptively limit speech regarding jurors and the case before any new trial is scheduled.
Judge Sullivan has already denied the defense’s request for an evidentiary hearing to question the single juror who dissented in the previous trial. That juror, Michael P. Desronvil, reportedly pushed for a conviction and declined to acquit Clancy by reason of insanity despite harboring doubts about her guilt.
The district attorney’s office has not yet announced whether it intends to retry Clancy on first-degree murder charges. If convicted, Clancy faces the possibility of life imprisonment. If acquitted on grounds of insanity, she could be subject to confinement in a mental health facility.